Archive for February, 2022


DISPOSITIVE:

WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED. The July 10, 2013 Decision and November 4, 2013 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP. No. 126064 are AFFIR.t’1.ED. Petitioner Evelina E. Belarso’s dismissal is valid. No pronouncement as to cost.

SO ORDERED.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

APPELLANT WAS CAUGHT STEALING BELT BUCKLE, COMPANY PROPERTY. SHE WAS DISMISSED ON THE GROUND OF LOSS OF TRUST.

Further, while Belarso insists that the charge imputed  against her defies logic and common experience, ti.’w records show that she had a propensity to violate company rules and regulations.

APPELLANT ALSO QUESTIONS THE AFFIDAVITS EXECUTED BY THE GUARDS AND HER CO-EMPLOYEES. BUT THESE WERE DEEMED TO CARRY WEIGHT BECAUSE THEY WERE NOTARIZED.

Belarso also assails the affidavits executed by the guards and her co[1]employees for being similarly worded a..nd executed on the same day, and for being dated two months after the incident. However, these do not automatically invalidate the contents of the affidavits. Being duly notarized, they carry with them the presu..’!lption of regularity aJJ.d authenticity which may be rebutted only by “strong, complete and conclusive proof.”57 This, Belarso was unable to present.

BELARSO ARGUES THAT THE PENALTY IS TOO HARSH CONSIDERING HER 34 YEARS OF SERVICE. LENGTH OF SERVICES IS NOT A BARGAINING CHIP.

Belarso finally argues that the penalty is too harsh considering her 34 years of service in the company. However, length of service is not a bargaining chip that can simply be stacked against the employer. 59 Under the present circumstances, length of service only aggravates Belarso’s offense. First, she held a position of trust and confidence, overseeing the custody of the raw materials she tried to steal. As a supervisor, greater trust was placed on her by QHI. Second, her infraction affected the very essence of loyalty and honesty which all employees owe to their employers. It was serious, grave, and reflected adversely on her character.

AN EMPLOYER CANNOT BE COMPELLED TO CONTINUE THE EMPLOYMENT OF AN EMPLOYEE IN WHOM THERE HAS BEEN A LEGITIMATE LOSS OF TRUST AND CONFIDENCE.

In fine, vVe find Belarso’s dismissal for loss of trust and confidence valid. Indeed, “[w]hile the State can regulate the right of an employer to select and discharge his or her employees, an. employer cannot be compelled to continue the employment of an employee in whom there has been a legitimate loss of trust and confidence.”60

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Decision dated May 23, 2019 and Resolution dated June 27, 2019 of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

PICCIO ALLEGED THAT HRET GRAVELY ABUSES ITS DISCRETION BY COMMITTING MOSAIC PLAGIARISM.

THE COURT SAID THERE WAS NO PLAGIARISM.

Piccio submits that the assailed Decision is an “obnoxious example of simple and mosaic plagiarism. “207 He quotes portions of the assailed Decision and compares them to quoted portions of Vergara’s Verified Answer and Memorandum, and concludes that as they are the same, the BRET had committed “mosaic plagiarism/patchwork plagiarism.”208 He submits that this is “unacceptable, unethical[,] and open[s] [the BRET] to suspicion as to its fairness, impartiality[,] and integrity.” 209 He alleges that “such callous and dishonest conduct endangers the credibility and integrity of the Tribunal,”210 and then cites the case of In the Matter of the Charges of Plagiarism, Etc., Against Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo211 (In re Del Castillo).

The Court rejects these submissions.Foremost, it bears stressing that the charge of plagiarism in the In re Del Castillo case cited by Piccio was dismissed for lack of merit. In essence, the Court found therein that Justice Del Castillo (and his researcher) lacked any motive or reason for omitting attribution for the lifted passages to their authors.212 The Court stressed the element of fraudulent intent in plagiarism which it defined as ‘”to take (ideas, writings, etc.) from (another) and pass them off as one’s own.’ The passing off of the work of another as one’s mvn is thus an indispensable element ofplagiarism.

In the subsequent Resolution of the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in In re Del Castillo,214 the Court had occasion to clarify and distinguish judges from the academe where the element of malicious intent in plagiarism is disregarded – in the academe, original scholarship is highly valued because the writing is intended to earn for the student an academic degree, honor or distinction. In contrast, court decisions are not written to earn merit as an original piece of work or art. Rather, deciding disputes is a service rendered for the public good.2 15

Moreover, as accuracy of words in law is foremost, the tendency to copy of judges and lawyers is explicable. Hence, the Court recognized the right of judges to use legal materials which belong to the public domain, even without attribution, including liftings from a party’s pleading.

WHAT WAS THE CONTENTION OF PICCIO AGAINST VERGARA?

THAT VERGARA DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF RA 9225 FOR REAQUISITION OF FILIPINO CITIZENSHIP.

SUPREME COURT SAID THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES WITH PICCIO AND THAT HE UTTERLY PROVED HIS CONTENTION.

In light of the above discussion, petitioners before the HRET clearly and utterly failed to prove their assertion that Vergara did not comply with the requirements of R.A. 9225 for the re-acquisition of her Filipino citizenship. All of the evidence they adduced have been, and are, debunked by contrary evidence presented by Vergara and the relevant laws.

……….

Nevertheless, Vergara, while not carrying any burden of evidence as the burden of proof had not shifted from Piccio, proved, by sufficient and substantial evidence, that she had duly taken her oath and duly executed an affidavit of renunciation in compliance with the requirements ofR.A. 9225.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is hereby DENIED. The assailed August 2, 2012 Decision and the January 30, 2013 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 91686 are hereby AFF’IRMED.

Respondcnts’Motion for Prior Leave of Court (to file [l] Notice of Death of }\;farina S. Valero; [2] Motion to Allow Substitution of Movants as Compulsory Heirs of the Decedent; and [3] Entry of Appearance of Undersigned Counsel for Movants) is NOTED.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

THIS IS A CASE FOR RECONSTITUTION OF TITLE. APPELLANTS ARGUE THAT THERE WAS NO PUBLICATION OF THE REVISIONS OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION AND THUS RTC DID NOT ACQUIRE JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE. SUPREME COURT SAID THAT THE REVISIONS MERELY REFER TO THE SUBSTITUTION OF THE PARTIES IN VIEW OF THE DEATHS OF SPOUSES MANALO AND THE MENTION OF RA 26 AS THE APPLICABLE LAW. THESE ARE MINOR MATTERS. NEW PUBLICATION IS NOT NECESSARY.

This Court finds, as the CA did, that the foregoing does not affect the nature of the action that necessitates another posting and publication, 25 The revisions merely refer to the substitution of the parties in view of the deaths of the spouses Manalo and the mention of RA 26 as the applicable law. These are minor matters that simply tend to assist and guide the RTC in conducting the proceeding. Hence, the earlier posting and publication of the petition for reconstitution prior to the second amendment w~re sufficient for the RTC to acquire jurisdiction on the subject matter of the case.

WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES TO BE COMPLIED WITH FOR AN ORDER FOR RECONSTITUTION TO BE ISSUED?

In Sebastian v. Spouses Cruz, 19 We pointed out that the following
requisites must be complied with for an order for reconstitution to be
issuE:d: (a) that the certificate of title had been lost or destroyed; (b) that the
documents presented by petitioner are sufficient and proper to
wanant reconstitution of the lost or destroyed certificate of title; (c) that the
petitioner is the regist~red owner of the property or had an interest
therein; ( d) that the certificate of title was in force at the time it was lost and
destroyed; and (e) that the description~ area and boundaries of the property are
substantially the same as those contained in the lost or destroyed
certificate of title. Petitioner claims that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction
over the case because the second amended petition contained substantial
changes and annexes and yet said petition was not posted and published as
required under Sections 12 and 13 of RA 26.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.